The Science Thread

Made it easier when related to econ, and perhaps I'll get new insight in those classes by thinking theoretical physics

Another example is quantum tunnelling, where particles can 'borrow' energy from the vacuum to cross a barrier as long as they 'pay it back' quickly. This allows particles to cross barriers which otherwise they would not be able to. Basically the 'banking principle' is a result of the quantum (probabilistic) nature of our Universe, which dictates that no outcome has zero probability. Thus, say a particle is in front of a big barrier and it does not have, by any stretch, the required energy to cross to the other side. Classical physics would say that without the required energy, there is zero probability that the particle can cross. But in our quantum universe the probability is not zero and indeed we observe that the particle does cross with a small but certain frequency, the reason being that it 'borrows' the required energy from the vacuum and quickly returns it. This is experimentally confirmed and is well-established science.

So, given that the 'banking principle' is real in our Universe, these cosmologists stretch the concept and speculate that the same principle might be responsible for the spontaneous creation of the Universe itself.

 

God is a...banker? That would explain the very low interest rates, the lack of loans, no refunds for bad service and the steep penalty for early withdrawal.

Assuming that you lived in a world where doing anything costs money, if you have zero money you can do nothing. In some sense you do not exist in that world, nothing will happen. But the laws of banking allow that your zero money can be turned into a loan of 1000 dollar and 1000 dollar cash in your pocket. You still have zero money, but the laws of that world also say that the combination of a 1000 dollar loan and a 1000 dollar cash allow you to do things, it allows things to happen. Both are different manifestations of zero, but while one does not allow anything happening, the other does. 

Virtual particles do indeed spontaneously pop up out of the empty vacuum with zero net energy input, a pair of particle and antiparticle (positive + negative) which in most cases immediately annihilate each other. While virtual particles are not directly observable they explain correctly many observed phenomena so the fact that positive + negative energy manifestations can spontaneously appear out of nothing in our Universe is considered a confirmed fact. The cosmological theory extends this idea to the the appearance of a complete Universe out of nothing.

The claim the universe came from nothing, which I guess is not news to science in any way, but that supposedly "nothing" would actually be incredibly unstable, so much so that nothing MUST produce something, he says. 

This is where I struggle. While I understood more or less all of it, can anyone explain what exactly is "nothing"? Does he mean a vacuum, or some "pre universe" type of nothing, as in no time or literal existence? 

Guess I can't wrap my head around it, if anyone is familiar with him/the theory and can elaborate, would be appreciated! 

I don't much care for his snarky attitude but, what can ya do?